Rates are crashing and fuel to the moon!

It's not, "end of discussion." The fact you haven't been through any market turns proves you're either a new carrier, leased on or are just full of crap because if you've been around long enough you would know that the power of negotiation comes with having the upper hand or at least an interested customer that needs your services.

When the market is down, it's not conducive to negotiate terms unless you know they really need it moved. However, when it needs to move it needs to move and you then have leverage.

If you think walking away from a market that doesn't generate revenue to the business as a failure than that's your perogative. Seems like an über poor business decision to run very expensive assets into the ground for less than company wages. You keep on winning out there my man.

Lots of other things you've said thus far have been really lame even though I could kind of see your point. However, straight up attacking me without provocation is disturbing.

You're completely flying off the handle and getting personal for no reason. I haven't attacked you or thrown any insults your way yet you've decided to take it to this level.

Very sad, my friend. I remember when you first joined this site. I defended you. I now regret that decision.

I'm not sure why you're being so over the top hostile but your abuse is not welcome with me. I feel bad for those close to you. I bet you abuse them.

Be sure to come back and let us know when you get to meet a real customer face to face that you've solicited. I want to hear all about your success and how you're sticking it to the evil brokers.

 

That makes much more sense. Initially, it seemed more casual with less formalities. Thanks for breaking it down to me.

 

Have a good day.

 

But it hasn't been finished being blown up. The Supeme Court hasn't weighed in, yet, if it makes it that far. I have a feeling when it reaches there, the FTC will be upheld, as the rule is not so much a rule against rights, as a rule enforcing rights, for individuals, rather than for Corporations. This could be deemed to be a business only interest whereas the Non-Compete itself interferes with individual's rights to freedom, much like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just a thought.

 

Is this thread generating any ROI????

 

Remember this is the same court that gave us Citizens United and the Hobby Lobby rulings - both of which were huge wins for corporations. Even though the Hobby Lobby ruling was undone by legislation, it's indicative of the thinking of the this Court. Traditionally the courts have sided with employers.
Lopsided Success for Corporate Interests: The New Normal Under the Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority (2022-2023 Term) | Constitutional Accountability Center
https://peoplesparity.org/wp-conten...-Courts_A-Practical-Guide-to-Court-Reform.pdf

And that's IF it makes it that far. A BIG IF considering the plaintiff in the case that won the injunction has significant ties to the incoming administration, not to mention the incoming president's long history with NDAs that effectively function as non-competes.

 

I don't really see those decision, leaning into this aspect, in fact, both decisions seem to me, to lean more to individual right than, corporate. The CU case, prevents organizations from requiring money from members to pursue political candidates that individuals don't wish to agree to support. (Recent decisions not to endorse, may have been a result of this reasoning. Members didn't support what leadership did.), and the Hobby Lobby decision, regardless of legislative changes, reflects that a private owned company had the right to it's owners exercising their beliefs, thereby protecting their individual freedoms.
The animals you cite, NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreements) are not on par with NCA (Non-Compete Agreements). NDA's make you legally liable for disclosing things that you agree specifically not to disclose, for the ability to be given access to it. It's a specific one time and itemized kind of application that binds you to that information. NCA's on the other hand, is a restriction on one's ability to use their own skills and knowledge to earn a living. Those skills may or may not have been related to their work. Client lists and information of that sort, not withstanding, (which should be covered under an NDA), the ability to do the same kind of work elsewhere for another employer or yourself, should not be restricted.

Look at it like this. You're a CDL driver. If you leave an employer because you disagree on something (equipment for example), should that restrict you from being able to make a living as a CDL driver for someone else even in the same industry? I went through that with my last employer, and basically told him when I signed it, that it was unenforceable based on the same reasons as my CDL is not restrainable by him. Can a lawyer that no longer represents an auto company anymore be restrained from working for another auto company? No, because his knowledge that isn't specific to that employer isn't restrainable. Perhaps an NDA (which is covered by client/attorney privilege) means they can not disclose specific information, but it doesn't stop that attorney from practicing law, even in the same industry.

Since those Judges were attorneys, I'm more likely to think they'll see that logic as the driving decision making point, against NCA's. Only time will tell, but even their past decisions look like they look at logic, law and the constitution together with their decisions.

 

Litigation is still ongoing, so it's probably going to be pretty silly.